Quantifying Vocal Repertoire Tessituras Through Real-Time Measures
Matthew Schloneger, PhD, MM, Friends University Eric J. Hunter, PhD, Dept of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Michigan State University
Lynn Maxfield, PhD, National Center for Voice and Speech Selecting Appropriate Student Repertoire Voice teachers use experience and anecdotal evidence when selecting repertoire for students: • Range • Tessitura • Passaggio points • “Weight” • “Color” • Pedagogical goals Tessitura, however, is something that has until recently remained un- quantified by scientific methods.
The acquisition of singer Voice Range Profiles combined with the quantification of repertoire tessituras could help voice teachers scientifically choose repertoire that is a good “fit” for individual voices Previous Studies
Titze, Ingo, “Quantifying Tessitura in a Song." Journal of Singing, 65:1 (September 2008), 59–61. Hanrahan, Kevin. "Use of the Voice Range Profile in Assigning Repertoire: An Evaluation." NATS National Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, July 2010 (Best Poster Award) Nix, John, "Measuring Mozart: A Pilot Study Testing the Accuracy of Objective Methods for Matching a Song to a Singer.” Journal of Singing, 70:5 (June 2014), 561-572 Titze – Tessituragram of “Il mio tesoro” from Don Giovanni- Mozart Nix – VRP overlaying Tessituragram Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study was be to examine the use of dosimetry-derived tessituragrams and Voice Range Profiles (VRPs) in selecting appropriate voice repertoire for singing students. Research Questions 1. How do dosimetry-derived tessituragrams compare to score-derived tessituragrams of the same selection in the same key? 2. How do dosimetry-derived tessituragrams of the same vocal selection (“Il mio bel foco…Quella fiamma” by Benedetto Marcello) compare when performed in three different keys each by four different female singers?; 3. How do singer VRPs compare with their tessituragrams of three performances of this aria, each sung in a different key?; 4. How do singer and expert panel perceptions of the aria’s “fit” in three different keys align with the overlay of singer VRPs with tessituragrams? Methods Each singer (N=4) completed the following: Demographic profile Voice Range Profile –Voice Dosimeter Aria recording – Recorded with Voice Dosimeter and Hall Microphone --Three repetitions in random order of “Quella fiamma” (Schimer Complete 28 Italian Songs and Arias in 5 Keys, Ed. Parisotti) 1. Singer’s accustomed key 2. Adjacent higher key 3. Adjacent lower key Singer Perception Questionnaire Expert Panel Questionnaire (N=5) ◦ Random order listening Ambulator Monitoring - Voice Dosimeter
• Sonovox AB VoxLogTM portable voice analyzer collar • Standard digital recorder Recording Arias were recorded simultaneously with the voice dosimeter and a hall microphone The Hall microphone recorded .wav audio files of the choir using a ZOOM H6 device (XY microphone attachment, 90 degree angle) at a 44.1 kHz sampling rate (16 bits). Singer Perceptual Survey Each singer responded to the following questions on a separate page following each song repetition:
When in singing the selection, I perceived (mark a tic on the scale):
My overall ease in singing: Easy |------| Difficult
High notes: Easy |------| Difficult
Low notes: Easy |------| Difficult
Register transitions: Easy |------| Difficult
Overall “weight” of the selection: Easy |------| Difficult Participants
1. 17-year old soprano, college freshman, 3 years voice lessons, 4 years choir 2. 18-year old soprano, college freshman, 1 year of voice lessons, 13 years choral experience 3. 21-year-old mezzo-soprano, college senior, 3 years of voice lessons, 16 years choral experience 4. 37-year-old soprano, professional singer, 10 years of voice lessons, 10 years choral experience
None of the singers reported current vocal pathologies or a history of vocal pathologies VoxLog Data Processing Initial data processed using Goldwave v5.70 digital audio editing software (normalizing volume, splitting files, etc) MATLAB Dosimeter Analysis Expert Panel
Five (5) experienced vocal pedagogues listened to all 12 excerpts in random order and responded to a series of 5 questions regarding the efficiency of vocal production
Mark with a vertical line on the scale:
Overall ease in singing: Free/Efficient |______| Strained/Inefficient
High notes: Free/Efficient |______| Strained/Inefficient
Low notes: Free/Efficient |______| Strained/Inefficient
Register transitions: Free/Efficient |______| Strained/Inefficient
Overall “weight” of the selection Free/Efficient |______| Strained/Inefficient Results Score-Based Tessituragram Quella fiamma-Medium High (Key of Am) Recit: 55 bpm; Aria: 100 bpm
Cycle dose Time dose per pitch 15000 35.00 14000 13000 30.00 12000
11000 25.00 10000 9000 20.00 8000 Time in 7000 seconds 15.00 6000 5000 10.00 4000 3000 2000 5.00 1000
0 0.00 F5 F4 B4 F3 A3 C#4/Db4 F4 A4 Db5 F5 A5 B3 A5 A4 G5 G4 Eb5 Eb4 Db5 C#4/… Musical Pitches Tessituragram (Dose Time) – Score compared to Dosimeter
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 F3 F4 F5 E4 E5 C#… C4 C5 B3 B4 Bb… A3 A4 Ab… D4 D5 G3 G4 Gb… Eb4 Eb5 Bb4 Ab4 Db5 Gb4 Dose Time - Score-based estimate vs Dosimeter Reading
160
140
120
100
80 Actual Dt (s) 60 Expected Dt (s)
40
20
0 17yo 17yo 17yo 18yo 18yo 18yo 21 yo 21 yo 21 yo 37 yo 37 yo 37 yo Sop H Sop Sop M Sop H Sop Sop M Mez Mez M Mez Sop H Sop Sop M (Bm) MH (Fm) (Bm) MH (Fm) MH (Fm) ML (Bm) MH (Fm) (Am) (Am) (Am) (Em) (Am) Cyce Dose (Dc) - Score-Based estimate vs. Dosimeter Reading
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000 Actual Dc 30000 Expected Dc
20000
10000
0 17yo 17yo 17yo 18yo 18yo 18yo 21 yo 21 yo 21 yo 37 yo 37 yo 37 yo Sop H Sop Sop M Sop H Sop Sop M Mez Mez M Mez Sop H Sop Sop M (Bm) MH (Fm) (Bm) MH (Fm) MH (Fm) ML (Bm) MH (Fm) (Am) (Am) (Am) (Em) (Am) Voice Range Profiles Song Range Profile/Tessituragram Voice Range Profile Accelerometer (Voice Source) vs. Audio (Source + Filter)
Accel.
Audio
Low High Song Tessituragrams (SRP) – Three Keys
Song Range Profile (SRP) boxed areas equal 68.2% of all voicing – A visualization of tessitura
A larger area means a greater dynamic range was used in performance Singer 1 – VRP Area overlayed with SRP Areas
__ VRP - - - Bm ___ Am - . - Fm Singer 2 – VRP Area overlayed with SRP Areas
__ VRP - - - Bm - . - Am ___ Fm Singer 3 – VRP Area overlayed with SRP Areas
__ VRP ___ Am - . - Fm - - - Em Singer 4 – VRP Area overlayed with SRP Areas
__ VRP - - - Bm ___ Am - . - Fm Singer Perception Average of All Questions - Self Perception Higher indicates less ease 100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00 Higher Key 50.00 Usual Key 40.00 Lower Key 30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00 17-yo Soprano 18-yo Soprano 21-yo Mezzo 37-yo Soprano Avg Overall Ease in Singing - Self Perception Higher indicates less ease
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00 Higher Key 50.00 Usual Key 40.00 Lower Key
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00 17-yo Soprano 18-yo Soprano 21-yo Mezzo 37-yo Soprano Avg Register Transitions - Self Perception Higher indicates less ease 100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00 Higher Key 50.00 Usual Key 40.00 Lower Key
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00 17-yo Soprano 18-yo Soprano 21-yo Mezzo 37-yo Soprano Avg Expert Panel Inter-Rater Reliability Intraclass 95% Confidence F Test Correlation/ Interval Cronbach’s Lower Upper Value df1 df2 Alpha Bound Bound Overall Ease of singing .612 .108 .873 2.579 11 44 High Notes .736 .391 .913 3.782 11 44 Low Notes .392 -.400 .800 1.644 11 44 Register Transitions .239 -.752 .750 1.314 11 44 Weight .598 .075 .868 2.487 11 44 Average .473 .228 .658 1.898 59 236 Singer Perception vs Panel Perception
Average of All Questions Average of All Questions Self Perception Expert Panel Perception Higher indicates less ease Higher indicates less ease 100.00 100.00 90.00 90.00 Higher Key 80.00 80.00 Usual Key 70.00 70.00 Lower Key 60.00 60.00
50.00 50.00
40.00 40.00
30.00 30.00
20.00 20.00
10.00 10.00
0.00 0.00 17-yo 18-yo 21-yo 37-yo Avg 17-yo 18-yo 21-yo 37-yo Avg Soprano Soprano Mezzo Soprano Soprano Soprano Mezzo Soprano Overall Ease in Singing Overall Ease in Singing Self Perception Expert Panel Perception Higher indicates less ease Higher indicates less ease
100.00 100.0 Higher Key 90.00 90.0
80.00 80.0 Usual Key
70.00 70.0 Lower Key 60.00 60.0
50.00 50.0
40.00 40.0
30.00 30.0
20.00 20.0
10.00 10.0
0.00 0.0 17-yo 18-yo 21-yo 37-yo Avg 17-yo 18-yo 21-yo 37-yo Avg Soprano Soprano Mezzo Soprano Soprano Soprano Mezzo Soprano Register Transitions Register Transitions Self Perception Expert Panel Perceptions Higher indicates less ease Higher indicates less ease
100.00 100.0 Higher Key 90.00 90.0 Usual Key 80.00 80.0
70.00 70.0 Lower Key
60.00 60.0
50.00 50.0
40.00 40.0
30.00 30.0
20.00 20.0
10.00 10.0
0.00 0.0 17-yo 18-yo 21-yo 37-yo Avg 17-yo 18-yo 21-yo 37-yo Avg Soprano Soprano Mezzo Soprano Soprano Soprano Mezzo Soprano Singer 1 (17yo Soprano) – VRP/SRP Areas vs Perception
__ VRP - - - Bm ___ Am - . - Fm
Singer 1 (17-yo Soprano) - Self-Perception Singer 1 (17-yo Soprano) - Panel Perception Hgher indicates less ease in singing Hgher indicates less ease in singing 100.00 100.0 90.00 90.0 80.00 80.0 70.00 70.0 60.00 60.0 Bm 50.00 50.0 40.00 40.0 Am 30.00 30.0 Fm 20.00 20.0 10.00 10.0 0.00 0.0 Overall Ease High Notes Low Notes Register Weight Average Overall Ease High Notes Low Notes Register Weight Average Transitions Transitions Singer 2 (18-yo Soprano) - VRP/SRP Areas vs Perception
__ VRP - - - Bm - . - Am ___ Fm
Singer 2 (18-yo Soprano) - Self-Perception Singer 2 (18-yo Soprano) - Panel Perception Higher indicates less ease in singing Higher indicates less ease in singing 100.0 100.0 90.0 90.0 80.0 80.0 70.0 70.0 60.0 60.0 Bm 50.0 50.0 40.0 40.0 Am 30.0 30.0 Fm 20.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Overall Ease High Notes Low Notes Register Weight Average Overall Ease High Notes Low Notes Register Weight Average Transitions Transitions Singer 3 (21-yo mezzo) – VRP/SRP Areas vs Perception
__ VRP ___ Am - . - Fm - - - Em
Singer 3 (21-yo Mezzo) - Self Perception Singer 3 (21-yo Mezzo) - Self-Perception Higher indicates less ease in singing Higher indicates less ease in singing 100.00 100.0 90.00 90.0 80.00 80.0 70.00 70.0 60.00 60.0 Am 50.00 50.0 40.00 40.0 Fm 30.00 30.0 Em 20.00 20.0 10.00 10.0 0.00 0.0 Overall Ease High Notes Low Notes Register Weight Average Overall Ease High Notes Low Notes Register Weight Average Transitions Transitions Singer 4 (37-yo Soprano) – VRP/SRP Areas vs Perception
__ VRP - - - Bm ___ Am - . - Fm
Singer 4 (37-yo Soprano) - Self-Perception Singer 4 -(37-yo Soprano) - Panel Perception Higher indicates less ease in singing Higher indicates less ease in singing
100.00 100.0 90.00 90.0 80.00 80.0 70.00 70.0 60.00 60.0 Bm 50.00 50.0 40.00 40.0 Am 30.00 30.0 Fm 20.00 20.0 10.00 10.0 0.00 0.0 Overall Ease High Notes Low Notes Register Weight Average Overall Ease High Notes Low Notes Register Weight Average Transitions Transitions Limitations Small number of participants & small expert panel – no statistical validity Dosimeter may have missed a small amount of voicing activity More investigation on the relationship between vocal fold contact measurement (dosimeter) and acoustic measurement (audio) is needed Discussion Score-based tessituragram aligned well with dosimetry- based tessituragram – Score-based tessituragrams do have a practical application Singer Self-Perception aligned well with the VRP/SRP Comparisons Expert Panel Perception showed little inter-rater reliability or alignment with singer perceptions or VRP/SRP comparisons Score-based tessituragrams aligned with singer VRP’s show promise in repertoire selection Disclosure
This work was partially supported by the National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC012315 from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
The authors have no other relevant financial or non-financial disclosure The Van L. Lawrence Fellowship – The Voice Foundation and the National Association of Teachers of Singing
Lynn Maxfield and Ingo Titze
This work was partially supported by the National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC012315 from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.